Slice-o-Life: The Case for Pragmatism over Partisanship

Slice-o-Life: The Case for Pragmatism over Partisanship
by Mike Madias, Clinical Sociologist and Columnist

August 8, 2002

Columnist Mike Madias One of the biggest problems I have with politics of every stripe is that I have to check my mind and my passions at the door in order to become part of the group. I don't, or can't do that, and I can't even fake doing it for long. Also, in many political groups, I cannot openly declare or pursue my material needs, lest I be thought a crass materialist. I am not much for theory or ideology. I don't really tilt windmills, I am interested in what will put money in the bank. I tilt dragons. And dragons anger easily.

My criticism of Congressmen on both sides of the aisle is a not a matter of party affiliation. It is merely a matter of pragmatism.

I have the radical idea that a voting record is not a reason to elect or not elect a U.S. representative. Yet I see my representative and others running for re-election based on their votes. But, I cannot take a voting record to the liquor store and buy myself a half pint of quietude.

While the unions and the Sierra Club may be delighted by voting and give their favorites high recommendations, it does not mean anything to me, or to my neighbors who sit in the laundromat parking lot and make noise on a humid summer night. So I see that any given Representative has been useful to this lobby and that, but has not made a material difference in his own bailiwick.

I think that a vital part of the role of a congress person is to set up an organization the acts as a go-between, a liaison, if you will, between the resources of the federal government and the neighborhood. I'd want them to show leadership by being visible in the district.

A Representative has a double duty, as I see it. He or she should not just represent his constuency on the floors of Congress, but should also represent the government to his constiuents.

I am sorry Ted Sorensen, but sometimes it is fitting and proper to ask what the hell can my country do for me. And if my congressperson is not there to give me an answer, then I want a new congressperson. It is just being pragmatic.

Let's consider one of the labor organizations I belong to, the National Writer's Union. This union is part of the UAW. But despite the name it is not a true union in the consideration of the National Labor Relations Board. It has so little power that even the UAW hires outside the union when they need a writer. The UAW hires writers who don't belong to any union at all. My union says that is making real progress in getting the UAW to honor is own mission, and directly serve it's own members.

I joined the Writers Union because I thought that there was a good possibility that it would raise my income. There was a meeting of the union where I said this out loud: that the purpose of me being there was to be able to make more money. To my surprise, this is not why most of the people there joined the union.

"Then why the hell did you join?" I challenged.

And I swear I am not making this up; someone actually said, "I am here to be in solidarity with the labor movement, all over the world."

From that moment on I was not to be trusted, because my goal in working with my union was mercenary and not idealistic. I wanted to raise my income.

By the way, the idiot who was there for the sake of solidarity had a teaching job at a university and was forever writing a book that may never be published.

Part of surviving in this business of free lance newspaper work is producing useful copy on a deadline, copy that requires damn little editing, and is ready for the paper on Monday. And if you can provide a graphic that is even better. It has nothing to do with getting in the glee club and singing the Internationale.

Finally, consider the prescription medicine legislation that died in the United States Senate this week. The Republicans had a proposal. The Democrats had a proposal. Either one would have made life easier for me and my neighbors. Neither was passed. All these bozos had to do was vote on something and the proposal with the most votes would have won. The Senators did not pass anything,. A pox on all of them.

For me pragmatism is simple. My loyalties are to my family and those I really do love. I don't have much time or energy for those I am supposed to love. My waste basket quickly fills with mailing labels, calenders and pictures of cute polar bear cubs.

I speak and write out of self interest. I do not like solidarity that is forced on me. I don't like it if I am pledging allegiance to a flag, to a union or a dead president. But I am not an anarchist or a Libertarian. I see potential value in getting together and raise a barn here and there. I also believe, that when it is all said and done, the meek shall inherit the Earth-but the passive do not stand a chance.

Someplace, on a data base somebody thinks I am a Republican, I get their email and magazines. I have a membership card.

Someone else thinks I am a Democrat. I get letters from Al Gore, and Bill Clinton. I have gotten two membership cards from them.

Somebody else thinks I am a Maoist, I get their mail and their phone calls, but no membership card.

There are people who think I am a Green. For a while I thought so too.

The Republicans assume that individuals are the captains of their own souls, and that they should be left alone to get on with the process of gaining wealth for themselves and their posterity. You can do it! Think outside of the box! And when someone offers you ecstasy in any of its forms, just say no.

The Democrats, and probably many of the Greens, believe that individuals are for the most part overwhelmed and powerless when facing the capitalist social/cultural/economic juggernaut. Confronting that monstrosity prevents the effective exercise of moral responsibility. And without the intervention and support of a governmental Godzilla they and their progeny are doomed.

The Maoists say that until the whole capitalist system is brought down, there will be no justice.

Frankly, I find some degree of truth in all of those positions and I also think that they are all stellar examples of drivel. Maybe that is why my copy appears in conservative Republican publications, in progressive Democrat and Green publications. Often the same piece, containing the exact same language, could find a home in all of those publications. I bet my copy could also be published in Maoist newspapers, but I hear that they don't pay all that well.

The reason my byline is seen all along the political spectrum is this: I try to stay away from ideology. I just try to be real. The result is that, at first, every faction,-all of which have some claims to representing reality-thinks that I belong to them. When I start demanding that they accept reality and reject orthodoxy, I am shunned, and asked to leave.

When I was much younger I actually believed that I was defined by a movement or an organization. I collected membership cards as if they came in a pack with a thin slab of bubble gum. Hey kids, collect em' all.

There were organizations I really wanted to join, and identities that I really wanted to have. I hung on to some of these for dear life. But I ended up being told to leave. This happens rather often. Then I have to search for someone else's doorstep to darken. In time you end up pissing off the whole damn neighborhood.

Why do I spend my time and energy provoking anger and getting dismissed? It's my gift. Sometimes it is my bliss. ***

Photo of Mike Madias courtesy of the author

A clinical sociologist living in the Metropolitan Detroit area, Mike's work has appeared in The Detroit News. He may be reached by e-mail at News4629@aol.com.